And to not be entirely off-topic: quite a few people here suggested Eldrazi as the unexpected tribe. Doesn't that mean that people expect them? I hope it's something much more improbable, like homarids or beebles.
Or at least clerics. Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition.

Well, I'm gonna go "meh" on this one. It's not that the set is bad, it most definitely isn't. I just don't enjoy the aesthetics of vehicles and pilots and all that jazz. Not to mention energy counters. Mechanic is just fine, but the new pictures on cards? Not my cup of tea. There are quite a few cards for my casual cube in the making and commander decks, though. I'm just happy for all of you who actually like the set as a whole.

One more thing: Revolutionary Rebuff. You all seem to like it. Why? I started playing back when Counterspell was a thing. Mana Leal is a perfectly fine common for both limited and constructed. Was it really necessary to nerf it this much?

Sure, it's not perfect. You're right that the enthusiasm seems awfully staged, but they are trying real hard here. It's not easy doing this on camera. The first time I was made to "perform" this way (yes, it was a cooking show, why do you ask?), it looked even worse. That's what you get when you make people with zero experience with public performance to do this kind of thing.
Also, regarding the video, I really appreciate that they did it in one take. That's a major pain to pull off, even if it is something this simple.

Damnit! I could have sworn this was about Conspiracy. Thanks for pointing that out, sorry to interrupt the discussion.

To not be totally off-topic: Since Wizards are trying to keep the numbers of allied and enemy lands in standard equal (but not equally efficient), I hope we'll see 5 uncommon and 5 rare lands again, finally getting enemy fastlands. Or enemy lands to complete any other cycle. Anything would be nice. Just give me two more efficient lands for my highlander

Seriously? I haven't been too active around here over the past few months, but every single time you write something, it's either misinformed or jumping to conclusions. I would take you for a troll, but you seem to honestly have no clue. The text you quoted is an example. As such, it doesn't mean anything. You know what that "(less likely)" in there means? That's an implication that there actually won't be any eldrazi in Conspiracy 2, because you are not very likely to open any. That's conversational implicature. But whatever. Yes, maybe (and that's a huge maybe) they will reprint Grisly Anglerfish (what do you know, there already is an eldrazi fish out), but it won't mean anything story-wise, just like Inquisition of Kozilek doesn't mean anything, just like Mirari's Wake or Phage the Untouchable didn't mean anything. It's much more likely that the only situation in which you will be able to open an eldrazi fish in Conspiracy draft will be via a card similar to Lore Seeker, by adding an EMN booster to the draft. Actually, this might be a hint that there will be such an effect, but no one in their right mind would take this as a hint that they will come up with new eldrazi for Conspiracy 2 or that they will put DFCs in it. If you turn out to be right, I will immediately leave for Nepal, where I intend to live as a goat.

I expected Marchesa to be changing out a color for White but I expected it to be Red not Blue.

Also Sovreigns Realm is the absolute definition of pack one pick one. Pull that and you can happilly go five color good stuff. Grab seven or eight basics for your sideboard and go ham.

IIRC in limited your sideboard automatically includes an arbitrarily large number of basic lands. Which makes me wonder how this card interacts with Fastbond (relevant in cube). Can I exile a card from my hand and then just play 15 basics from outside the game? If I have Courser of Kruphix as well, is this the first combo that can create an arbitrarily large number of nontoken permanents? And, of course, with some sort of reshuffle effect, is this the most elaborate way to win with Battle of Wits in a limited format?

Give this man a cookie!

If you are right, and it seems that you are, I will not rest until I actually manage to pull this off. Though that would require putting Battle of Wits in my cube and I don't think my playgroup would approve. Unless I add wishes, we agree on being able to wish for anything from one's collection and I manage to draft Golden Wish...

Over the last few days, Stensia Innkeeper has been one of the more prominent topics at MaRo's tumblr. It's been clear for some time now that R&D considers traditional LD unfun and therefore won't print any efficient LD cards. Now they are experimenting with new forms of mana denial for red, trying to find something that wouldn't be so oppressive.

I personally love LD. I enjoy playing with and against mana denial (just knowing there's a mana denial deck in your meta adds a very interesting facet to deckbuilding for me). I understand why people think it's unfun, just like I understand why some people don't like having their cards discarded or spells countered. However, I firmly believe that efficient LD should be a part of Magic, just like efficient counterspells and discard.

I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here, I just want to know how much of a minority it is.

No, you can't exile a spell with Spell Queller if it's awaken cost was paid and it's greater than 4, even though the spell's CMC off the stack is 4 or less. Converted mana cost is calculated as stated several times here already as long as the spell is not on the stack. On the stack, CMC of a spell is equal to the sum of all the mana paid to cast it. If you paid the awaken cost, the spell's CMC is dependent on the awaken cost, not the card's printed cost.

This is wrong. A spell's converted mana cost isn't the same as how much mana you paid for it. It always comes from the Mana Cost of the spell, which is the printed mana symbols on the top corner of the card itself. You're describing the spell's total casting cost, which is not the same thing and doesn't change the spell's CMC.

Ruinous Path has a CMC of 3 in any zone it is, including as a spell on the stack. It doesn't matter if you cast it the normal way, or for its Awaken cost paying seven mana, or for free out of a Cascade effect, the CMC is still 3 so it can be exiled by Spell Queller.

X also counts towards the CMC of a spell on the stack. You can even see that in Spell Queller's first oracle ruling.

This is true, because the X is part of the printed mana cost itself, so you use the value of X (not how much you actually paid for it, mind you) when calculating the spell's CMC.

I do admit I may be wrong here, but at least I got the X part right I do have a follow-up question, however: what about phyrexian mana and cards like Snuff Out? I have just re-read the comprehensive rules and if I understand it correctly, on-stack CMC of cards with phyrexian mana and alternative casting costs is not in any way influenced by your choice of payment. Dismember's CMC on the stack is always 3, even if I pay just 1 mana and 4 life; same with Snuff Out being cast by paying 4 life instead of actual mana. If I pay Goblin Bushwhacker's kicker, it's CMC is still 1, so it can't get Spell Snared. The only thing that influences CMC on stack is X in casting cost. Do I understand it correctly?

No, you can't exile a spell with Spell Queller if it's awaken cost was paid and it's greater than 4, even though the spell's CMC off the stack is 4 or less. Converted mana cost is calculated as stated several times here already as long as the spell is not on the stack. On the stack, CMC of a spell is equal to the sum of all the mana paid to cast it. If you paid the awaken cost, the spell's CMC is dependent on the awaken cost, not the card's printed cost. X also counts towards the CMC of a spell on the stack. You can even see that in Spell Queller's first oracle ruling.

Monarch reminds me of the edge from VtES a lot. Which is not necessarily a bad thing - in that game it worked great. I wonder what it's going to be like without the predator-prey structure of interaction, though.

Would you care to elaborate?

To put it short, in Vampire: The Eternal Struggle (VtES) you can only attack the player to your left (known as your "prey"). Whenever you "bleed" a player this way (deal them combat damage basically), you gain what's called the "edge" (represented by a counter). At the beginning of your turn, if you control the "edge", you basically gain 1 life. What makes it interesting is that in VtES, your life is your resource (you spend it like mana to play cards). These rules in combination make for a dynamic and often tense multiplayer experience, where deal making is a key part of strategy and aggressive play needs to be balanced with caution.

I'll just add one little clarification: in Vampire, you automatically replace every card you play (wit ha fex card-specific exceptions), so gaining a point of life in that game is closer to card advantage in MtG than to lifegain.

What about Teferi? His clothes looks very Kaladeshy. We've seen Ob Nixilis and Nahiri in the last two blocks, so why don't continue with those walkers? Daretti also seems fine, and Freyalise doesn't fit in Kaladesh IMO. Thoughts?

Teferi was an oldwalker from Dominaria (Zhalfir, to be specific) who gave up his spark to close a time rift during the Time Spiral story, so even if he's still alive (quite likely, actually), he's not a planeswalker anymore.